It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Wizayne
Actually you are wrong and backwards. Because all three buildings fell during the same event, all you have to do is prove one of them was a controlled demolition and that would be enough to suspect every building on that day was demolished by controlled actions.

Can you prove that George Bush and his administration were involved?

Definitively prove your case?


Why do I have to prove GB and company were involved if the thread is about controlled demolition and your lack of proof that it was a naturally accuring gravity collapse without externel help, other than a plane. The point is to demonstrate the OS is a lie and to have PROFESSIONALS track down the proof of WHO did it once they have the authority to investigate. Unless you can grant me access to classified material, can you provide that clearence?




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by bjarneorn
The precense of thermite residue can be observed ... it can be observed in many ways. Although many of these ways are circumstancial, that still supports thermite presence. One of the ways you can see it, is by the molten steel ... you have no heat source to melt steel ... none, period. And if you continue to talk about kerasin fuel melting steel, then seriously go jump off a bridge or something ...


This is where your argument falls apart. Only Jones "observed" the thermite residue, and there was no molten steel, so your evidence is bunk. The stuff dripping out of the towers was either from the lead batteries on that floor, or from melted aluminum mixed with office contents. It's stupid to think it was molten steel.

There is one of two things wrong with your statements; either you have your information wrong or you are being intentionally dishonest. First of all, Dr Jones is NOT the only who came to this conclusion. He joined up with a team of international scientists to further examine the evidence. They went through a rigorous peer review process and their paper was published in the Betham Chemical Physics Journal.

Furthermore, Dr. Niels Harrit also published a paper with his findings in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Three independent labs all separately found iron microspheres, which is only accomplished with very high temperatures and means it was molten.

Nobody is yet to come forward and refute these papers. If your information is correct and the work of these scientists is not, then you should publish your findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal, which anyone is yet to do. Otherwise, the findings published in these journals stands.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And this is said by the person who's so sure it's melted steel. You're a hypocrite and you know it.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Yes, iron micro-spheres were found, but it is not definitive that it had to be caused by molten steel, and it is also speculative to assume that this would find its way into every sample of Trade Center dust. It's all just assumptions piled on speculation. It's like watching one of those ridiculous History Channel shows where they go "What if this happened? That would mean THIS is what really happened! Based on knowing that THIS happened, then we know that THIS must be the ultimate truth! OMG!"



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
Sure seems to be a lot of sheetrock and fireproofing dust for the top third of the building. This is where the top portion commits hari kari:


Source




edit on 6-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)


Yes. Every steel member was layered in thick, powdery fireproofing. Every floor had sheetrock and concrete. Since the upper section was 20-30 floors of this stuff, that is not a surprising amount of dust.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Yes, iron micro-spheres were found, but it is not definitive that it had to be caused by molten steel, and it is also speculative to assume that this would find its way into every sample of Trade Center dust. It's all just assumptions piled on speculation. It's like watching one of those ridiculous History Channel shows where they go "What if this happened? That would mean THIS is what really happened! Based on knowing that THIS happened, then we know that THIS must be the ultimate truth! OMG!"


So my argument still stands. Like I said, publish your findings to be reviewed by scientists if you are right and the teams of scientists are wrong. To call their findings "assumptions" and "speculations" then compare it to irrelevant History Channel shows is laughable. They put their findings in peer reviewed journals. The findings in those journals still stands.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
So my argument still stands. Like I said, publish your findings to be reviewed by scientists if you are right and the teams of scientists are wrong. To call their findings "assumptions" and "speculations" then compare it to irrelevant History Channel shows is laughable. They put their findings in peer reviewed journals. The findings in those journals still stands.


I've seen who peer reviewed them. They were all conspiracy theorists who already agreed with Jones' work. Of course they're not going to criticize it. If I remember, the specific journal has had some flak as well for publishing things based on being paid and not actually reviewing the work people put through.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Here we go again !!!

Have any of you watched Dimitri Khalezov`s

911thology.cn...

Or read his book ?

If not, then the time is NOW. Forget thermite, Forget Judy Wood, THIS IS IT.
And before posting comments, do seeeee the 26 episodes completely, and take time to let it all sink in to your minds.

NO PLANES, only explosives, and... se for your selves...

www.myspace.com...

Here`s the fingerprint of the dust, this is the proof, of a thermo nuklear demolition.
And melted steel in the rubble, for weeks !!!

www.box.net...

Have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


I really love stuff like that because of the way they cite previous instances where similar results have occurred. Oh wait, no one in the Truth movement does that. Only WTC 7 looks similar to a demolition, and even then, demolitions usually don't internally collapse for 10 seconds before globally collapsing, and the charges can always be heard.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


The EMP would have taken out a lot of electronics?
Is this reported?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
So my argument still stands. Like I said, publish your findings to be reviewed by scientists if you are right and the teams of scientists are wrong. To call their findings "assumptions" and "speculations" then compare it to irrelevant History Channel shows is laughable. They put their findings in peer reviewed journals. The findings in those journals still stands.


I've seen who peer reviewed them. They were all conspiracy theorists who already agreed with Jones' work. Of course they're not going to criticize it. If I remember, the specific journal has had some flak as well for publishing things based on being paid and not actually reviewing the work people put through.


Then why haven't these findings been published? I see you are now resorting to attacking individuals credibility as well as the journals, rather than the information contained within them. Also, do you have any proof of them being paid, as you claim? If their findings are wrong, then publish a scientific journal to be reviewed, which anyone is yet to do, period.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The Twin Towers would not have fallen had a plane or 2 being flown into them, 3 buildings came down that day. WT7 just seemed to have fallen out of pity or so it seems it wasn't hit at all. Thermite was found in the debris of nearby apartments, Berry Jennings talked and said he heard explosions and he suddenly died of what was it a heart attack? Something is fishy and WT7 just adds to the suspicion of what REALLY happened. Watch the Youtube video Loose Change, it's long but explains A LOT.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 





Neal Bush, was a part owner of the company that started WTC security AFTER Silverstein bought it from Ports Authority for just under $200 million (if memory serves). Not that this was a White Elephant -- there were perhaps $1-$2 Billion of necessary work to remove Asbestos from the building, so I'm sure the Ports Authority was relieved to dump it. Silverstein must have looked like a fool. He then doubled the insurance for "terrorist acts" in July (just mention these things in case someone didn't see other fishy things going on).


Umm, no. No member of the Bush family was in any way, shape or form, an owner of the company that started Tower security after Silverstein LEASED the WTC complex from the Port Authority.

Marvin Bush, had been a member of the Board of Directors for Securacom, a company that had a contract to install some security systems at the WTC, but had to be excused from said contract for not being able to comply with it. In addtion, Mr Bush left the board in June 2000. Before his brother was the GOP nominee and before Silverstein leased the complex.

According to the building abatement report, the total cost of work needed to remove asbestos was going to be in the 200 million dollar range.

Then there is the "insurance" issue again. The "terrorism" insurance was never doubled. Mr Silverstein tried to buy just 1.5 billion in business interruption coverage (where terrorism falls) and his bankers balked. Eventually they agreed to 3.5 billion in coverage. Of which, the actual policy was still being negotiated on 9/11/01. There was only a binder agreement at that time, which the insurance companies agreed to honor after the attack. It was later on that Silverstein went to court to have each tower declared separate acts under the insurance to try and double the pay out from the companies. At last count, he has paid over 1.2 billion in rent to the Port Authority for property that has not generated an income for him since 2001....and of which, the buildings still arent complete. The insurance money will run out before the complex is reopened for business.


THANKS, those were some good details.

However, I'm considering that Marvin Bush was still a silent partner in the security agency -- and that NOT EVERYTHING was written down for a blogger like you and me to discover.

Silverstein got about $7 Billion in compensation for a building that cost less than $200 Million.

>> I wasn't aware the Asbestos abatement would be only $200 Million -- I'm just grabbing a few things from memory. But that seems a bit low in New York for a building that has more than 2 million square feet -- are they getting walls stripped for a dollar a square foot and pulled out by people in Has-mat gear? You may be right, but regardless -- that's a bit more than the PRICE of leasing the building.

>> Yes, I remember that Silverstein tried to get covered for TWO incidents -- but I still recall that he was to be paid a LOT MORE than $1.2 Billion.

>> Overall, it sounds like you've done your homework.
But I'm creating the most PLAUSIBLE scenario for what MIGHT have happened; having Silverstein in on it would help a lot -- and the Security Guards would be ideal to replace with demolitions crew. Do I know for a fact? No. Is it the ONLY scenario? NO. But I would like to rule it out.

If I were charged with investigating this; I'd track down all the security guards and the agency and verify the whereabouts, identity, financial status and deaths of those Guards. I'd also like to know a bit about the investigators of ground Zero -- same questions.

When Dan Rather came up with documents pointing to Bush being AWOL in Alabama -- the "team" that investigated it, was hired by the White House. CBS got some help with the FCC and their merger with another group went through -- but they didn't cover this fact in their news stories following the event. Rather was thrown to the wolves.

So I merely "SUSPECT" that BushCo would have the same people setting the charges as were investigating it; they have a history. It's their usual motus operandi. They did it on Iran/Contra as well.

The Bush family members always try to profit form a scam - and their fingers aren't too far away from many disasters in war or banking.

Theory 1)
19 guys with box cutters mostly from Saudi Arabia allegedly trained in Florida to crash airplanes into tall buildings. Three buildings collapsed at freefall speed from two impacts.
Theory 2)
The most corrupt administration in US history duped some enemies into attacking a building. Knowing the time and location, they set charges to maximize the impact to the public and start two wars.

The FOLLOWUP to Theory 2 is the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Patriot Act I & II, and then the banking "emergency" in 2008.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


You are speaking a GENERIC sense about "most people or some people."

I'm talking about Cheney, Silverstein, a few Bush family members, head of NORAD, head of security at the FAA, about a dozen people from Controlled Demolitions inc., who MIGHT have worked as security guards at Marvin Bush's WTC Security for a few months prepping the building.

Then we've got the bag man who delivered the cash -- someone like Abramoff of the "Duke Stir" fame.

.... so far, NOBODY I would suspect of being a warm hearted person who might tell the truth. I'm sure that the SELECTION PROCESS was quite careful, and anyone who was useful but not able to keep a secret probably died some distance away from Ground Zero.

We've got maybe a few key people pushing strings in the media to control the propaganda.

You've got the man LEADING the Al Qaeda group who MIGHT have been a British double agent.

You've got the two guys at the air strip in Jupiter Florida, who were suspected of being a CIA air drop -- they've since gotten a contract of about $25 Million on some government project.

Maybe a few people at the FBI vetoing investigations like finding the names of the security guards and tracking the credit cards used to purchase some of the rental vehicles, and the guy who left the briefcase with all the evidence conveniently pointing to Al Qaeda.

So I'd say; about 2 dozen people. The rest are just everyday people doing their compartmentalized job and not knowing the bigger picture. happens all the time at the CIA and Pentagon.

>> Behind this, you've got the status quo of incredible corruption; why no Whistleblowers at Goldman Sacks for instance?

>> And how can you say NO WHISTLEBLOWERS? I've read of many 'suspicious suicides' and we've got a few murders. Just google "whistleblower dies mysterious".



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Hey, nice avatar.

:-)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

1: Why and/or how would the pre-rigged explosives begin detonating exactly at the point of impact on both towers? How would this have been accomplished so precisely?


It wasn't exact so I'd disagree about that, but certainly close to it. Electronic guidance was already very accurate in 2001. The demolition was false flag in nature and carried out in a covert and psychologically deceptive way. Most likely they could start the demo from whichever floor they wanted.



2. How would pre-rigged explosives planted throughout the building survive the extreme impact (jolt) of a commercial jet, subsequent explosion, and resulting fire (which raged for more than an hour)--and still work perfectly when detonated--in sequence, resulting in a "free fall" of the building? It seems like a controlled demolition on such an enormous scale and with such precise timing would leave little room for error, especially from potential prior damage to the rigging.


Demolition munitions are quite safe in a fire, there's been many controlled demolitions that involve huge firework and pyrotechnic displays. With the towers I'd imagine they had remote detonators that weren't completely interconnected, so if some explosives failed in certain areas on some floors it wouldn't stop them from detonating the rest of them. With that much explosive you could init from any floor you like.



3. Imploding either tower would have been the largest controlled demolition in history (as far as I know). The amount of explosive needed would have been emormous, meaning a series of VERY LOUD explosions with each collapse. I know there were peripheral explosions heard and reported prior to the collapses and some claim to see explosions in the collapse footage, but it seems like detonated charges from the amount of explosives necessary to bring down such massive structures would have been salient, LOUD, and unmistakeable (see below). Why are no such explosives heard in any of the footage of Twin Towers collapsing?


Yeah it's really quite something. A record breaker in demolitions. Normally in a conventional demolition they set them all of within a very short space of time, but with the twin towers it seems as though they were slowly setting off the primary charges, weakening the structure over the course of an hour before finally letting it drop. Besides, there's plenty of reports of heavy duty explosions after the planes hit (and before).



4. I've never seen a controlled demolition of a large building which begins at the top and progresses downwards (as seen with the twin towers). Has this kind of demolition been used before on other structures? Is this a tried and tested technique?


It has yes but not so much on buildings, but blasting of mines and valleys i have seen the exact same thing. Of course, when it's a military operation and the job is to demolish a structure they would know exactly what it takes to bring those buildings down, without leaving anything left for the enemy to discover.



5. Why would the perpetrators have rested with assured minds that all would go perfectly as planned despite myriad unknown variables inherent with such a violent inferno? Even well planned, well controlled demolitions can and do go awry with much smaller structures and without the additional 767 impact subsequent to the preparation. Who would have considered this feasible and without high risk of possible exposure due to the potential for error?


I think one insurance they had was they used so much damn explosive power there wasn't much chance of failure, they overloaded so it was less likely to fail. WTC7 has often been thought of as the dud which took 5 hours to get back online, and whatever happened or was supposed to happen with U93. The operation was carried out using proxies, people are framed, blackmailed and so there are fall guys to take the blame.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxJohnson
 


Rotflmao....

The Pentagon doesn't have missiles systems, it doesn't have threat detection radar, no super secret geostationery satellites...which wouldn't do squat to help defend against an attack. The Pentagon, had a security force...period. And the same crappy cameras that my base has. You can whine all you want to, but the truth of the matter is, the military was woefully unprepared for the type of attack we were hit with that day. And we aren't much better prepared today. You whine about TSA, well here is a dirty little secret....TSA, the national intellgence director and all that crap, is just so the politicians can tell the voters "We did something". It hasn't made us any safer, all it has done, has made it so people like you have something to complain about. That way, you won't spend time looking at the past.....and all the things our elected leaders did, starting back in the 70s that gradually eroded our national defense. Oh, sure, we can travel overseas and pound the crap out of a country, but we cannot effectively respond to an attack in the US.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Here's a potential answer to some of your questions.

If the building was rigged with explosives and the planes hit the buildings it would've likely severed some of the connections between the explosives, unless they were individually rigged with remote detonators.

Before we even look at whether or not they were controlled demolitions, you have to examine the differences in motivations behind a typical controlled demolition and what would've been the case of a controlled demolition in this circumstance.

In a typical demolition, you would have to absolutely be certain that damage to surrounding structures would be minimized. That is why larger explosives are used than are REALLY necessary.

In this case, the explosives would've been a fail safe. The first attack on the WTC in the 90's had massive explosives but did littel true structural damage and didn't take down the bldgs.

They needed to make SURE that hte bldgs came down.

How do you do that???

You place explosive charges at key structural locations throughout the bldg. If you had unfettered access to the bldgs for several months with "repair crews", you could place the explosives, but how would you blame that on the terrorists, they wouldn't have been able to do that. So you hit the bldgs with airplanes.

You place the explosives and then you hit the bldgs with airplanes, let them burn for a while and then detonate the explosives, not in succession, but all at once. You don't have to maximize safety, you've already killed a bunch of people, and if you get away with it, there can be no suits for damage to surrounding bldgs or people so safety isn't a primary concern like in most controlled demolitions.

The thing is, since the planes impacted the bldgs at a certain point, there's a good chance that the impact severed connections or damaged the detonators so that they cannot go off.

This is why the bldgs would've appeared in some cases to have begun collapsing at the point of impact.

Although the first impacted bldg did not appear to collapse at the point of impact, if you watch the video you showed, it shows the upper part of the bldg collapsing on multiple floors at the same time and then cascading down all at once. This is consistent with explosive charges going off all at the same time.

In the second impacted bldg, the top most portion leans slightly while falling along with the rest of the bldg, this would be consistent with explosives in the portions below the impact level going off, but not going off above the impact point, due to damage preventing them from going off.

The simple truth is that the likelihood of the towers falling strictly from fire is so infinitely small as to qualify under the statement, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the case.

Again, this is just a possible explanation for some of the questions that you posed.

Jaden



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Then why haven't these findings been published? I see you are now resorting to attacking individuals credibility as well as the journals, rather than the information contained within them. Also, do you have any proof of them being paid, as you claim? If their findings are wrong, then publish a scientific journal to be reviewed, which anyone is yet to do, period.


That may sound fine and dandy to you, but I don't know where to get dust samples, a lab to analyze them in, and a degree to give myself credibility as I attempt to publish my paper. Someone else already did it, but I bet you forgot about them or ignored them.

This seems to sum up most of the analysis done on the dust:
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Controlled Demolitions make noise, alot. Conspiracy theorists ignore that part all the time. A series of explosions would be heard.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join